Adaptive movement and food-chain dynamics: towards food-web theory without birth–death processes

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Michio Kondoh ; Akihiko Mougi ; Atushi Ushimaru ; Kensuke Nakata
• 关键词：Food ; web theory ; Mathematical model ; Ideal free distribution ; Game theory ; Productivity ; Two ; patch model
• 刊名：Theoretical Ecology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：9
• 期：1
• 页码：15-25
• 全文大小：459 KB
• 参考文献：Abrams PA (1993) Effects of increased productivity on the abundances of trophic levels. Am Nat 141:351–371CrossRef
  Abrams P (1995) Monotonic or unimodal diversity-productivity gradients: what does competition theory predict? Ecology 76:2019–2027CrossRef
  Abrams PA (2007) Habitat choice in predator–prey systems: spatial instability due to interacting adaptive movements. Am Nat 169:581–594CrossRef PubMed
  Abrams PA, Roth J (1994) The responses of unstable food chains to enrichment. Evol Ecol 8:150–171CrossRef
  Adler PB, Raff DA, Lauenroth WK (2001) The effect of grazing on the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation. Oecologia 128:465–479CrossRef
  Allesina S, Tang S (2012) Stability criteria for complex ecosystems. Nature 483:205–208CrossRef PubMed
  Alonzo SH (2002) State-dependent habitat selection games between predators and prey: the importance of behavioural interactions and expected lifetime reproductive success. Evol Ecol Res 4:759–778
  Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (1989) Coupling in predator–prey dynamics: ratio-dependence. J Theor Biol 139:311–326CrossRef
  Bastolla U, Fortuna MA, Pascual-García A, Ferrera A, Luque B, Bascompte J (2009) The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458:1018–1020CrossRef PubMed
  Bolker B, Holyoak M, Krivan V, Rowe L, Schmitz O (2003) Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84:1101–1114CrossRef
  Briggs CJ, Hoopes MF (2004) Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid–host and predator–prey models: a review. Theor Popul Biol 65:299–315CrossRef PubMed
  Cowie RJ, Krebs JR (1979) Optimal foraging in patchy environments. In: Anderson RM, Turner BD, Taylor RL (eds) Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 183–205
  Cressman R, Garay J (2009) A predator–prey refuge system: evolutionary stability in ecological systems. Theor Popul Biol 76:248–257CrossRef PubMed
  Cressman R, Křivan V, Garay J (2008) Ideal free distributions, evolutionary games, and population dynamics in multiple- species environments. Am Nat 164:473–489CrossRef
  DeAngelis DL, Persson L, Rosemond AD (1995) Interaction of productivity and consumption. In: Polis G, Winemiller KO (eds) Food Webs. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 109–112
  deRuiter P, Wolters V and Moore J (2005) Dynamic food webs. Elsevier, Burlington
  Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1969) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRef
  Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton
  Hairstone NG, Smith FE and Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control, and competition. Am Nat 94:421–425
  Holt RD (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. Am Nat 124:377–406CrossRef
  Holt RD (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol 28:181–208CrossRef
  Holt RD (1996) Food webs in space: an island biogeographic perspective. ​In: Polis G, Winemiller KO (eds) Food Webs. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 313–323
  Hugie DM, Dill LM (1994) Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J Fish Biol 45(Supplement sA):151–169
  Iwasa Y (1982) Vertical migration of zooplankton: a game between predator and prey. Am Nat 120:171–180CrossRef
  Jackson AL, Ranta E, Lundberg P, Kaitala V, Ruxton GD (2004) Consumer-resource matching in a food chain when both predators and prey are free to move. Oikos 106:445–450CrossRef
  Johnson AR, Wiens JA, Milne BT, Crist TO (1992) Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landsc Ecol 7:63–75CrossRef
  Kacelnik A, Krebs JR, Bernstein C (1992) The ideal free distribution and predator–prey populations. Trends Ecol Evol 7:50–55CrossRef PubMed
  Kagata H, Ohgushi T (2006) Bottom-up trophic cascades and material transfer in terrestrial food webs. Eco Res 21:26–34
  Křivan V (1997) Dynamic ideal free distribution: effects of optimal patch choice on predator–prey dynamics. Am Nat 149:164–178CrossRef
  Křivan V, Cressman R (2009) On evolutionary stability in predator–prey models with fast behavioural dynamics. Evol Ecol Res 11:227–251
  Křivan V, Cressman R, Schneider C (2008) The ideal free distribution: a review and synthesis of the game-theoretic perspective. Theor Popul Biol 73:403–425CrossRef PubMed
  Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRef
  Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:70–75CrossRef
  Lotka AJ (1925) Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore
  McCann KS, Rasmussen JB, Umbanhowar J (2005) The dynamics of spatially coupled food webs. Ecol Lett 8:513–523CrossRef PubMed
  McCann KS, Rooney N (2009) The more food webs change, the more they stay the same. Philos Trans R Soc B Bio Sci 364:1789–1801CrossRef
  Mittelbach GG, Osenberg CW, Leibold MA (1988) Trophic relations and ontogenetic niche shifts in aquatic ecosystems. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–235CrossRef
  Morales JM, Moorcroft PR, Matthiopoulos J, Frair JL, Kie JG, Powell RA, Merrill EH, Haydon DT (2010) Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:2289–2301CrossRef
  Mougi A, Kondoh M (2012) Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337:349–351CrossRef PubMed
  Mougi A, Kondoh M (2014) Stabilizing effect of competition-antagonism-mutualism hybrid community and the role of community network structure. J Theor Biol 360:54–58CrossRef PubMed
  Oksanen L, Fretwell SD, Arruda J, Niemelä P (1981) Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 118:240–261CrossRef
  Oksanen L (1990a) Exploitation ecosystems in seasonal environment. Oikos 57:14–24CrossRef
  Oksanen T (1990b) Exploitation ecosystems in heterogeneous habitat complexes. Evol Ecol 4:220–234CrossRef
  Persson L, Bengtsson J, Menge BA, Power ME (1996) Productivity and consumer regulation - concepts, patterns, and mechanisms. In: Polis G, Winemiller KO (eds) Food Webs. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 396–434
  Polis G, Winemiller KO (1995) Food webs. Kluwer, Dordrecht
  Power M (1992) Top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs: do plants have primacy? Ecology 73:733–746CrossRef
  Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387CrossRef PubMed
  Schmitz OJ, Hambäck PA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141–153CrossRef PubMed
  Sih A (1984) The behavioral response race between predator and prey. Am Nat 123:143–150CrossRef
  Strong DR (1992) Are trophic cascades all wet? Differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems. Ecology 73:747–754CrossRef
  Thébault E, Fontaine C (2010) Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329:853–856CrossRef PubMed
  van Baalen M, Sabelis MW (1999) Nonequilibrium population dynamics of “ideal and free” prey and predators. Am Nat 154:69–88CrossRef
  Volterra V (1926) Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi. Mem R Accad Naz dei Lincei 2:31–113
  Wang W, Takeuchi Y (2009) Adaptation of prey and predators between patches. J Theor Biol 258:603–613CrossRef PubMed
  Yodzis P (1984) Energy flow and the vertical structure of real ecosystems. Oecologia 65:86–88CrossRef
  Yodzis P, Innes S (1992) Body size and consumer-resource dynamics. Am Nat 139:1151–1175CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Michio Kondoh (1)
  Akihiko Mougi (2)
  Atushi Ushimaru (3)
  Kensuke Nakata (4)
  
  1. Department of Environmental Solution Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Ryukoku University, 1-5 Yokoya, Seta Oe-cho, Otsu, 520-2194, Japan
  2. Department of Biological Science, Faculty of Life and Environmental Science, Shimane University, 1060 Nishikawatsu-cho, Matsue, 690-8504, Japan
  3. Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, 3-11 Tsurukabuto, Nada, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan
  4. Kyoto Women’s University, Kitahiyoshi-cho 35, Higashiyama-ku, Kyoto, 605-8501, Japan
  
• 刊物主题：Theoretical Ecology/Statistics; Plant Sciences; Zoology;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1874-1746

文摘

Population density can be affected by its prey [resource] and predator [consumer] abundances through two different mechanisms: the alternation of birth [or somatic growth] or death rate and inter-habitat movement. While the food-web theory has traditionally been built on the former mechanism, the latter mechanism has formed the basis of a successful theory explaining the spatial distribution of organisms in the context of behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Yet, few studies have compared these two mechanisms, leaving the question of how similar (or different) predictions derived from birth–death-based and movement-based food-web theories unanswered. Here, theoretical models of the tri-trophic (resource–consumer-top predator) food chain were used to compare food-web patterns arising from these two mechanisms. Specifically, we evaluated the response of the food-chain structure to inter-patch differences in productivity for movement-based models and birth–death-based models. Model analysis reveals that adaptive movements give rise to positively correlated responses of all trophic levels to increased productivity; however, this pattern was not observed in the corresponding birth–death-based model. The movement-based model predicts that the food chain response to productivity is determined by the sensitivity of animal movement to the environmental conditions. More specifically, increasing sensitivity of a consumer or top predator leads to smaller inter-patch variance of the resource or consumer density, while increasing inter-patch variance in the consumer or resource density. In conclusion, adaptive movement provides an alternative mechanism correlating the food-web structure to environmental conditions.